Seriously if you are not convinced that Barack Obama is an empty suit spewing empty rhetoric by the fact that his own speech writer is voting for McCain then you are in serious denial. Wendy Button, who has written for Barack Obama, John Edward, Hillary Clinton and even Michelle Obama is done with the democratic party. Please read this "So Long, Democrats" as it is too long to post here in it's entirety. But here are a few noteworthy thoughts Wendy Button penned:
"This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field."
"Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?"
"Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity. Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”"
"I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges."
Let me reinterate this is Barack Obama's speech writer!!! She was totally entrenched in the Democratic party and she is telling us what the party has become. Wake the hell up people!
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Penultimate Words on Barack Obama As Told By COBB
I just read this post by Cobb at http://cobb.typepad.com/ what a brilliant assessment in my opinion:
"I am completely reconciled to the likelihood that Barack Obama will win the Presidency this fall. My campaigning against him continues and my disagreements with him, I will continue to make clear. While I cannot say with any certainty that I could be convincing on the broad variety of reasons I have to oppose his campaign I am very clear in the way I see him.
I think that a startling number of people who support Obama do so on the basis of his personal appeal with no regard or consideration of the history of the pedigree of his philosophy. They are ahistorical and show no intellectual curiosity when it comes to the principles underlying his promise of 'fundamental change'. They buy naively into narratives about the destruction of America that has no window beyond a twisted interpretation of what has transpired over the past 8 years. Whether the subject is war, diplomacy, tax policy, or the very capacity to build a public Ministry of Health - they are invested in the narrative of change which seeks to cast cynical shadows on the unique strengths of American institutions and an almost mystical belief in his ability to turn the ship of state on a dime.
Worse, supporters of this Democrat have completely ignored advice from the man who has become the grey eminence of their ticket, Joe Biden who said:
Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day -- he -- I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, "What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?" I said, "I'd feel like a jerk."
He said, "Joe, understand one thing. Everyone's sent here for a reason, because there's something in them that their folks like. Don't question their motive."
I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I've disagreed. I've questioned their judgment.
I think that's why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I've been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That's the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people's motives.
They have injected the presumption of racial bigotry on their opponents.
It doesn't surprise me that the man who has raised the greatest amount of money in the history of presidential fundraising has been able to persuade masses of Americans. He has used television, radio, the internet, cell phones and even put billboards of himself inside of popular videogames. He has used skill and bravura to enhance his image not only in America but overseas as well. Photographic images of Obama in every possible flattering situation have flooded emails. Any unflattering image of the man is met with vehement charges of racism and deception.
Barack Obama is a man of the people who has appeared very suddenly onto the national scene and taken the country by storm at a time when people are insecure in their economic future, concerned about victory or failure at war and divided in their political loyalties as well as their fundamental beliefs in the proper direction for the nation. Obama has very cleverly situated himself as the conduit for change for an electorate which is frantic and agitated - not on the basis of fundamental philosophical agreement, but on faith in him as a change agent.
Very few people can say with any certitude what Barack Obama can or will do as President. He is very guarded and defensive, as are his supporters, about his background. And as a young man with less experience in national and world affairs than most any candidate in history, we have much more to learn about him.
Such difficulty I have with my perceptions of the Obama parade are typical of the kind of conservative I am. I don't expect that America will overnight or any time soon snap into a tight moral reasoning in their politics. I don't expect it on matters of racism, war and peace, job and family or education and religion. We have the public we have, and we have the political equilibrium that we do counting all the forces in this nation. It is not for me to suggest we have a better public, it is for me to deal with the public we have and to understand when they are motivated to do well or do otherwise - to ride the proper wave or to get out of the way and watch my back. It is eternally my hope that the strength and beauty of the system of justice we possess and the values underlying the defense of liberty are well understood, but that is a lifetime pursuit which is only marginally perturbed by popular elections.
As for the man himself, I very strongly believe that Barack Obama through his associations with radicals and socialists be they individuals or organizations has come to the realization of the very concrete limits of radical politics in America. After all, he left ineffective grass roots community organizing to attend Harvard Law. I think in that very specific and thoroughly Leftist and socialist way Obama shares a great deal in common with the politics of those his recent success has allowed him to leave behind. For a man as intelligent and ambitious as Barack Obama, there are no coincidences. Not in choice of political party, not in choice of backers, not in choice of churches, not in choice of legislative focus. There is a pattern and logic at work behind the rhetoric. These are details I think only his opponents wish to see clearly for the express purpose of situating Obama with his peers in world history. For it is America's place in world history that ought to be the ultimate concern of those who would be President. I am convinced that Barack Obama is not so concerned with America's role in the world so much as he is with the fate of the lower classes in America. This for me is the mightiest strike against him - not because I don't care for the fate of the lowly but because I recognize that the direction of the great is the most important factor in everyone's fate. Obama's solicitations to those, the least of his brothers at the expense of the great, gives me little confidence he will steer the ship of America in a way to insure its greatness.
A candidate with more seasoning and experience inside Washington would give someone like me less reason to be concerned. But I am particularly wary, in a way that I think I have learned the hard way with George W. Bush, of the particular influence of ideologues and partisans on the man in the Oval Office. Barack Obama, like no other candidate, seems to me to be the one who will depend most on Washington insiders to assist in crafting his agenda and enforcing his will. He will be a great prince in a warren of conniving viziers, not the least of whom is his running mate who has already rebuffed him in several dimensions. During this time of extraordinary and unprecedented change and chaos in financial markets, such concerns are hightened. I have no reason to believe that Obama will be more or less lucky or prescient than George W. Bush was on 9/12, but you can be sure that we will hear about it loudly should he win the Oval Office.
I have a great deal of confidence in this nation, and I expect that Obama would be an adequate president. But I don't forsee him doing a much better job of uniting the nation than Bush did. I believe that the presidency of Bill Clinton will be most instructive and will be the precedent for a President Obama. Nobody will simply 'move on'. Unity will come from events and from the bottom up, not from the top down as Obama's charismatic campaign seems to imagine. After the honeymoon is over and those young people energized by the war of campaigning go about their business, it will be as they said in Lawrence of Arabia: Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution. I for one will be such an old man in the peace following election day whichever way it goes. I would of course rather have such an old man as John McCain who would share my mistrust and caution. But I'm ready for the alternative" - Cobb (emphasis mine)
Well, I have not resolved the proposition that Barack Obama will win this election. It's possible but it isn't over until it's over despite what MSM would have you believe. Plus, I met a group of PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass) last night (shout out to Matt, Philip and MommaE on the My 2 Cents Blog Talk Radio Show) and they are so not voting for Obama.
"I am completely reconciled to the likelihood that Barack Obama will win the Presidency this fall. My campaigning against him continues and my disagreements with him, I will continue to make clear. While I cannot say with any certainty that I could be convincing on the broad variety of reasons I have to oppose his campaign I am very clear in the way I see him.
I think that a startling number of people who support Obama do so on the basis of his personal appeal with no regard or consideration of the history of the pedigree of his philosophy. They are ahistorical and show no intellectual curiosity when it comes to the principles underlying his promise of 'fundamental change'. They buy naively into narratives about the destruction of America that has no window beyond a twisted interpretation of what has transpired over the past 8 years. Whether the subject is war, diplomacy, tax policy, or the very capacity to build a public Ministry of Health - they are invested in the narrative of change which seeks to cast cynical shadows on the unique strengths of American institutions and an almost mystical belief in his ability to turn the ship of state on a dime.
Worse, supporters of this Democrat have completely ignored advice from the man who has become the grey eminence of their ticket, Joe Biden who said:
Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day -- he -- I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, "What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?" I said, "I'd feel like a jerk."
He said, "Joe, understand one thing. Everyone's sent here for a reason, because there's something in them that their folks like. Don't question their motive."
I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I've disagreed. I've questioned their judgment.
I think that's why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I've been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That's the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people's motives.
They have injected the presumption of racial bigotry on their opponents.
It doesn't surprise me that the man who has raised the greatest amount of money in the history of presidential fundraising has been able to persuade masses of Americans. He has used television, radio, the internet, cell phones and even put billboards of himself inside of popular videogames. He has used skill and bravura to enhance his image not only in America but overseas as well. Photographic images of Obama in every possible flattering situation have flooded emails. Any unflattering image of the man is met with vehement charges of racism and deception.
Barack Obama is a man of the people who has appeared very suddenly onto the national scene and taken the country by storm at a time when people are insecure in their economic future, concerned about victory or failure at war and divided in their political loyalties as well as their fundamental beliefs in the proper direction for the nation. Obama has very cleverly situated himself as the conduit for change for an electorate which is frantic and agitated - not on the basis of fundamental philosophical agreement, but on faith in him as a change agent.
Very few people can say with any certitude what Barack Obama can or will do as President. He is very guarded and defensive, as are his supporters, about his background. And as a young man with less experience in national and world affairs than most any candidate in history, we have much more to learn about him.
Such difficulty I have with my perceptions of the Obama parade are typical of the kind of conservative I am. I don't expect that America will overnight or any time soon snap into a tight moral reasoning in their politics. I don't expect it on matters of racism, war and peace, job and family or education and religion. We have the public we have, and we have the political equilibrium that we do counting all the forces in this nation. It is not for me to suggest we have a better public, it is for me to deal with the public we have and to understand when they are motivated to do well or do otherwise - to ride the proper wave or to get out of the way and watch my back. It is eternally my hope that the strength and beauty of the system of justice we possess and the values underlying the defense of liberty are well understood, but that is a lifetime pursuit which is only marginally perturbed by popular elections.
As for the man himself, I very strongly believe that Barack Obama through his associations with radicals and socialists be they individuals or organizations has come to the realization of the very concrete limits of radical politics in America. After all, he left ineffective grass roots community organizing to attend Harvard Law. I think in that very specific and thoroughly Leftist and socialist way Obama shares a great deal in common with the politics of those his recent success has allowed him to leave behind. For a man as intelligent and ambitious as Barack Obama, there are no coincidences. Not in choice of political party, not in choice of backers, not in choice of churches, not in choice of legislative focus. There is a pattern and logic at work behind the rhetoric. These are details I think only his opponents wish to see clearly for the express purpose of situating Obama with his peers in world history. For it is America's place in world history that ought to be the ultimate concern of those who would be President. I am convinced that Barack Obama is not so concerned with America's role in the world so much as he is with the fate of the lower classes in America. This for me is the mightiest strike against him - not because I don't care for the fate of the lowly but because I recognize that the direction of the great is the most important factor in everyone's fate. Obama's solicitations to those, the least of his brothers at the expense of the great, gives me little confidence he will steer the ship of America in a way to insure its greatness.
A candidate with more seasoning and experience inside Washington would give someone like me less reason to be concerned. But I am particularly wary, in a way that I think I have learned the hard way with George W. Bush, of the particular influence of ideologues and partisans on the man in the Oval Office. Barack Obama, like no other candidate, seems to me to be the one who will depend most on Washington insiders to assist in crafting his agenda and enforcing his will. He will be a great prince in a warren of conniving viziers, not the least of whom is his running mate who has already rebuffed him in several dimensions. During this time of extraordinary and unprecedented change and chaos in financial markets, such concerns are hightened. I have no reason to believe that Obama will be more or less lucky or prescient than George W. Bush was on 9/12, but you can be sure that we will hear about it loudly should he win the Oval Office.
I have a great deal of confidence in this nation, and I expect that Obama would be an adequate president. But I don't forsee him doing a much better job of uniting the nation than Bush did. I believe that the presidency of Bill Clinton will be most instructive and will be the precedent for a President Obama. Nobody will simply 'move on'. Unity will come from events and from the bottom up, not from the top down as Obama's charismatic campaign seems to imagine. After the honeymoon is over and those young people energized by the war of campaigning go about their business, it will be as they said in Lawrence of Arabia: Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution. I for one will be such an old man in the peace following election day whichever way it goes. I would of course rather have such an old man as John McCain who would share my mistrust and caution. But I'm ready for the alternative" - Cobb (emphasis mine)
Well, I have not resolved the proposition that Barack Obama will win this election. It's possible but it isn't over until it's over despite what MSM would have you believe. Plus, I met a group of PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass) last night (shout out to Matt, Philip and MommaE on the My 2 Cents Blog Talk Radio Show) and they are so not voting for Obama.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Even More Hope-O-Crisy Revealed...
Remember the Sen. Obama's campaign ad accusing Sen. McCain of not supporting equal pay for equal work for women? Well guess who has a disparity in salaries between male and females staffers in favor of males? You guess it --Sen. Obama....
"The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average." Source
Whoa, that means that Obama's female staffers earn .83 for every $1.00 male staffers earn!
How does Sen. McCain stack up?
"McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain."Source
So Sen. McCain female staffers earn $1.04 for every $1.00 male staffers earn.
But none of this really matters to Obama acolytes who can't be bothered with the facts as it interferes with their "high". In-frikin-credible!!!!
"The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average." Source
Whoa, that means that Obama's female staffers earn .83 for every $1.00 male staffers earn!
How does Sen. McCain stack up?
"McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain."Source
So Sen. McCain female staffers earn $1.04 for every $1.00 male staffers earn.
But none of this really matters to Obama acolytes who can't be bothered with the facts as it interferes with their "high". In-frikin-credible!!!!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A Different Strategy...
Cobb, one the the most brilliant writers and analytical brothers in the blogsphere just posted an article on his blog at www.cobb.typepad.com that should be read in its entirety. Basically he opines that the Republican Right which he affectionately dubs are "Righties" (at least I think its affectionately) are fighting a losing battle and suffering from "intellectual constipation" by continually using the following buzz words and talking points and suggests that we should find an alternate stategy to overcome the opposition, he writes:
"The following words have entirely lost their meaning, and all thoughtful Righties are hereby urged to dig deeply and find an alternate path in your opposition:
Ayers
ACORN
Joe The Plumber
Partial-Birth
Socialist
You Betcha
Rezko
Obama's Citizenship
Hussein
Muslim"
He then suggests an alternate strategy should be employed and writes:
"Use the size of your opponents army as a force against him. Barack Obama has made more money campaigning for the Office of President than any man alive or dead. He is a master propagandist. His appeal is singular and in order for him to win, you have to bleed him from 80 orifices all at once. If you attack him from all sides, he has to dilute the momentum of his mass by handling all the pesterization. What John McCain needs to do right now is raise 15 important issues that Obama has said nothing about that an experienced Washington insider knows everything about. Then watch him try to marshall his huge army of partisans around policy positions that Obama hasn't articulated. We understand that Obama has exploited his personal appeal to a broad coalition, but nobody on our side trusts his ability to deal with the complexities of the Oval Office. So why the hell are we talking about Joe the freakin' plumber instead of the complexities of the Oval Office? "
Again, this article should be read in its entirety so check it out at
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2008/10/little-rocks-bi.html
You will love his blog!!!!
"The following words have entirely lost their meaning, and all thoughtful Righties are hereby urged to dig deeply and find an alternate path in your opposition:
Ayers
ACORN
Joe The Plumber
Partial-Birth
Socialist
You Betcha
Rezko
Obama's Citizenship
Hussein
Muslim"
He then suggests an alternate strategy should be employed and writes:
"Use the size of your opponents army as a force against him. Barack Obama has made more money campaigning for the Office of President than any man alive or dead. He is a master propagandist. His appeal is singular and in order for him to win, you have to bleed him from 80 orifices all at once. If you attack him from all sides, he has to dilute the momentum of his mass by handling all the pesterization. What John McCain needs to do right now is raise 15 important issues that Obama has said nothing about that an experienced Washington insider knows everything about. Then watch him try to marshall his huge army of partisans around policy positions that Obama hasn't articulated. We understand that Obama has exploited his personal appeal to a broad coalition, but nobody on our side trusts his ability to deal with the complexities of the Oval Office. So why the hell are we talking about Joe the freakin' plumber instead of the complexities of the Oval Office? "
Again, this article should be read in its entirety so check it out at
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2008/10/little-rocks-bi.html
You will love his blog!!!!
The Defining Last 72 (Actually 96) Hours
I read this post this morning on Media Lizzy's blog and it sums up pretty much what I have been feeling regarding McCain/Palin ticket but unable (actually unwilling would be more accurate) to articulate. It was posted by OxyChaz at http://www.medializzy.wordpress.com/
"Hello all,
Well, the last 72 hours have been quite the roller coaster. At this point, I’m pretty much ready to concede this election. We’ve seen some pretty serious developments on the national scene that have started putting the final nails in the McCain-Palin coffin.
1.) Sarah Palin on SNL (minor)
2.) Colin Powell’s endorsement of Sen. Barak Obama (major)
3.) Sarah Palin taking hard to the right and publicly breaking w/ Sen. McCain’s stance on the Federal Marriage Amendment (important) on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” news-show.
Governor Palin really didn’t have anything to gain going on Saturday Night Live. And anything she could have gotten out of it she squandered. Instead of engaging in any kind of self-defecating humor herself, she just sat there and let others piss all over her while she just sat there and grooved along with it. Granted, it was funny as hell, but it didn’t achieve anything that it could - and should - have.
The major development of the week however was former US Joint Chief’s General Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Obama. To realize the importance of this, one must first examine the role that this hero plays in Republican Party and the electorate in general.
Gen. Powell has been recognized as a leader of the Republican “moderate” segment of the Party. He was forced out of the White House, lied to, and “hung out to dry” by Karl Rove and company. He’s lucky he got out with some of his integrity still intact. And knowing what we know now about Iraq, he’s the ONLY one who came out smelling like roses. Powell is a Republican. He’s generally politically moderate, and highly respected - and since he’s not really caught up with a.) the President, b.) any failures within the Party, and c.) any kind of scandals - he’s got total name recognition and real “street cred.”
So at this time, Gen. Powell’s endorsement is huge for two reasons:
1.) It gives moderate (or “sober”…use whatever you’d like) Republicans “permission” to vote for Obama. Powell made the case…most of it irrefutable…as to why a conscientious conservative & Republican can vote for Obama.
2.) It gives permission for military vets to vote for Obama. Powell, in many ways, can be considered the “top vet”, given his former job as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His endorsement paves the way for other veterans who would otherwise vote for McCain strictly on the “veteran card” to consider Obama and not feel like a traitor. Why is this important? Oh, well…maybe the HUGE population of vets in states like Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio…you know…all those states that McCain MUST WIN for him to capture the presidency.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is a tricky subject. Well, it’s actually not. Anybody who takes a Civics class knows the clause in the US Constitution that states that any issue not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is left in the pervue of the states. Like marriage. And drivers licenses. It’s a really easy out for Republicans who don’t want to get caught up in the gay debate. Vote no on the FMA b/c you support state’s rights and this takes rights away from the state. That’s what Senator McCain said, and how he voted…twice…in the Senate. He’s been a LONG adversary of the FMA - it’s one of the cornerstones to his “Maverick” image.
So yesterday Sarah Palin goes on “The 700 Club” (all news, all “right”, all the time) on the Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson) and comes out in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (FMA) - in total opposition to Senator McCain’s stance.
We are 14 days out from the election. What the HELL is Palin doing coming out and publicly breaking with her ticket-leader’s stance on such a controversial social issue?
And what did it achieve? Absolutely NOTHING. She didn’t convince ANY person who wasn’t going to vote for her already to do so. Her credentials are so strong on the abortion issue that she has solidified the “social conservative” constituency within the electorate (and Party). Hard as a rock. She didn’t need to come out in such fierce opposition to gay marriage (especially when it is rumored that she was supposed to do an interview with the national GLBT publication ‘The Advocate’ to help soften her hard-line stance with the gays, who voted 25% and 23% in 2000 and 2004, respectively, for Bush).
So what’s the sum of all of this? That “Maverick independent middle” that decides elections in this nation has been basically given the “ok” to vote for Obama, and then Palin basically goes and blows her chance on national TV to redeem herself and moves further to the extreme right on a pivotal social issue. And this all happened in one 72-hour chunk!
Please excuse me while I go get my lifejacket and flare-gun. The evacuation drill starts now.
xo,
-OxyChaz"
Actually, I have to disagree with OxyChaz on the concession. I don't believe Barack Obama will win by a landslide it will be very close. Actually, just between thee and thou I'm not convinced that he will win at all..... In fact, Armstrong Williams opines:
"It is not a foregone conclusion that this election is over, despite the media and intellectual elites’ effort to make us believe so. People are still unsure about who Sen. Barack Obama is. I find it amazing that, no matter how charismatic, charming or intellectually superior Barack is, there still remain serious questions about his experience and unapologetic, off-the-charts liberal record. I still don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue that the senator from Illinois is more experienced and prepared to lead this country than John McCain is. McCain may have many issues that plague him, but leadership, wisdom and having been in the line of fire are not among them. (Sarah Palin is another story, and is definitely hurting his chances of becoming president.)"
"Hello all,
Well, the last 72 hours have been quite the roller coaster. At this point, I’m pretty much ready to concede this election. We’ve seen some pretty serious developments on the national scene that have started putting the final nails in the McCain-Palin coffin.
1.) Sarah Palin on SNL (minor)
2.) Colin Powell’s endorsement of Sen. Barak Obama (major)
3.) Sarah Palin taking hard to the right and publicly breaking w/ Sen. McCain’s stance on the Federal Marriage Amendment (important) on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” news-show.
Governor Palin really didn’t have anything to gain going on Saturday Night Live. And anything she could have gotten out of it she squandered. Instead of engaging in any kind of self-defecating humor herself, she just sat there and let others piss all over her while she just sat there and grooved along with it. Granted, it was funny as hell, but it didn’t achieve anything that it could - and should - have.
The major development of the week however was former US Joint Chief’s General Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Obama. To realize the importance of this, one must first examine the role that this hero plays in Republican Party and the electorate in general.
Gen. Powell has been recognized as a leader of the Republican “moderate” segment of the Party. He was forced out of the White House, lied to, and “hung out to dry” by Karl Rove and company. He’s lucky he got out with some of his integrity still intact. And knowing what we know now about Iraq, he’s the ONLY one who came out smelling like roses. Powell is a Republican. He’s generally politically moderate, and highly respected - and since he’s not really caught up with a.) the President, b.) any failures within the Party, and c.) any kind of scandals - he’s got total name recognition and real “street cred.”
So at this time, Gen. Powell’s endorsement is huge for two reasons:
1.) It gives moderate (or “sober”…use whatever you’d like) Republicans “permission” to vote for Obama. Powell made the case…most of it irrefutable…as to why a conscientious conservative & Republican can vote for Obama.
2.) It gives permission for military vets to vote for Obama. Powell, in many ways, can be considered the “top vet”, given his former job as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His endorsement paves the way for other veterans who would otherwise vote for McCain strictly on the “veteran card” to consider Obama and not feel like a traitor. Why is this important? Oh, well…maybe the HUGE population of vets in states like Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio…you know…all those states that McCain MUST WIN for him to capture the presidency.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is a tricky subject. Well, it’s actually not. Anybody who takes a Civics class knows the clause in the US Constitution that states that any issue not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is left in the pervue of the states. Like marriage. And drivers licenses. It’s a really easy out for Republicans who don’t want to get caught up in the gay debate. Vote no on the FMA b/c you support state’s rights and this takes rights away from the state. That’s what Senator McCain said, and how he voted…twice…in the Senate. He’s been a LONG adversary of the FMA - it’s one of the cornerstones to his “Maverick” image.
So yesterday Sarah Palin goes on “The 700 Club” (all news, all “right”, all the time) on the Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson) and comes out in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (FMA) - in total opposition to Senator McCain’s stance.
We are 14 days out from the election. What the HELL is Palin doing coming out and publicly breaking with her ticket-leader’s stance on such a controversial social issue?
And what did it achieve? Absolutely NOTHING. She didn’t convince ANY person who wasn’t going to vote for her already to do so. Her credentials are so strong on the abortion issue that she has solidified the “social conservative” constituency within the electorate (and Party). Hard as a rock. She didn’t need to come out in such fierce opposition to gay marriage (especially when it is rumored that she was supposed to do an interview with the national GLBT publication ‘The Advocate’ to help soften her hard-line stance with the gays, who voted 25% and 23% in 2000 and 2004, respectively, for Bush).
So what’s the sum of all of this? That “Maverick independent middle” that decides elections in this nation has been basically given the “ok” to vote for Obama, and then Palin basically goes and blows her chance on national TV to redeem herself and moves further to the extreme right on a pivotal social issue. And this all happened in one 72-hour chunk!
Please excuse me while I go get my lifejacket and flare-gun. The evacuation drill starts now.
xo,
-OxyChaz"
Actually, I have to disagree with OxyChaz on the concession. I don't believe Barack Obama will win by a landslide it will be very close. Actually, just between thee and thou I'm not convinced that he will win at all..... In fact, Armstrong Williams opines:
"It is not a foregone conclusion that this election is over, despite the media and intellectual elites’ effort to make us believe so. People are still unsure about who Sen. Barack Obama is. I find it amazing that, no matter how charismatic, charming or intellectually superior Barack is, there still remain serious questions about his experience and unapologetic, off-the-charts liberal record. I still don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue that the senator from Illinois is more experienced and prepared to lead this country than John McCain is. McCain may have many issues that plague him, but leadership, wisdom and having been in the line of fire are not among them. (Sarah Palin is another story, and is definitely hurting his chances of becoming president.)"
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Soujourn For Truth If Indeed You Dare...
Soujourner Truth said that she would have led more slaves to freedom if they had known that they were not free. The bible says that the Truth will make you free. Yet some people do not want to hear the truth because their minds are already made up (their brains are shackled to a specific paradigm) and they refused to be confused by the FACTS -- This is defined as willful ignorance and nowhere has it been more plainly illustrated than this 2008 election. So, I will attempt to give some factual information to do with what you will....
Did John McCain vote for banking de-regulation? Google “Senate Bill s.900” or Click Here Answer : No, but JOE BIDEN DID VOTE FOR BANKING DE-REGULATION and William Jefferson Clinton signed it. (Yet, Obama and his acolytes will not share this information with you – As it might it dash your HOPE!)
Did John McCain support regulation of Fannie Mae? Google “Housing Reform Act of 2005” or Click Here Answer: Why Yes as a matter of fact he Co-sponsored the Bill!
(Yet, Obama and his acolytes claim that the republicans started this economic crisis and housing meltdown – CHANGE uh, is that why Sen. Obama was seriously considering keeping Paulson?) oh, by the way the Democrats blocked that bill (see the video in the Audacity of Hope-crisy post)
Also google “New Agency to oversee Fannie Mae” or Click Here– What do you know Bush tried to over haul Fannie and Freddie Mac in 2003!!! This is what his opposition said:
‘'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
Did Barack Obama support sex education for Kindergartners? Google “SB99 Illinois” better yet let me save you the time:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734
Answer: Yes, he does! So as you see “shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” –WHAT? How is that age appropriate Sen. Obama?
Do Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden really care about the middle and under class? Well, lets see google “Joe Biden Charitable donations or Click Here Now google Barack Obama Charitable Donations or Click Here (Not quite as bad as Biden – but da-yam didn’t they tithe to Trinity United being that they were 20 year members?)
Sidenote: John McCain give 26% of his income to charity.
Is Barack Obama really a candidate for the people? Google “Barack Obama’s Top Contributors” or Click Here Answer: Emphatically NO!!! Barack Obama has been bought and paid for by investment firms and lawyers.
Google "Barack Obama lawyers and lobbyists" or Click Here lobbyist love Barack Obama too and here's why:
“Obama, on his Web site, has listed every earmark he's requested – but not necessarily received – since he came to the Senate in January 2005. The total, including earmarks in which he joined with other senators in making the request, is $931.3-million. Since he took office in January 2005, Obama has been a senator for about 930 working days, defined as Monday through Friday. That's right about $1-million per working day, though we do realize McCain didn't say 'working day' in his speech the way he did in the mailer” - Source
That’s about $ 1 million per day!!!! (Still think he is the people's candidate?– pah-leez!!!)
“They want to raise taxes on savings and investments, meaning the people with money will not save money. Our savings rate is near zero. One man’s savings is another man’s mortgage! So how will we get a decent Mortgage if people stop saving ? We can’t. This isn’t voodoo economics it is assisted suicide and they are our economic dream team – The Mouthpeace
Did John McCain vote for banking de-regulation? Google “Senate Bill s.900” or Click Here Answer : No, but JOE BIDEN DID VOTE FOR BANKING DE-REGULATION and William Jefferson Clinton signed it. (Yet, Obama and his acolytes will not share this information with you – As it might it dash your HOPE!)
Did John McCain support regulation of Fannie Mae? Google “Housing Reform Act of 2005” or Click Here Answer: Why Yes as a matter of fact he Co-sponsored the Bill!
(Yet, Obama and his acolytes claim that the republicans started this economic crisis and housing meltdown – CHANGE uh, is that why Sen. Obama was seriously considering keeping Paulson?) oh, by the way the Democrats blocked that bill (see the video in the Audacity of Hope-crisy post)
Also google “New Agency to oversee Fannie Mae” or Click Here– What do you know Bush tried to over haul Fannie and Freddie Mac in 2003!!! This is what his opposition said:
‘'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
Did Barack Obama support sex education for Kindergartners? Google “SB99 Illinois” better yet let me save you the time:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734
Answer: Yes, he does! So as you see “shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” –WHAT? How is that age appropriate Sen. Obama?
Do Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden really care about the middle and under class? Well, lets see google “Joe Biden Charitable donations or Click Here Now google Barack Obama Charitable Donations or Click Here (Not quite as bad as Biden – but da-yam didn’t they tithe to Trinity United being that they were 20 year members?)
Sidenote: John McCain give 26% of his income to charity.
Is Barack Obama really a candidate for the people? Google “Barack Obama’s Top Contributors” or Click Here Answer: Emphatically NO!!! Barack Obama has been bought and paid for by investment firms and lawyers.
Google "Barack Obama lawyers and lobbyists" or Click Here lobbyist love Barack Obama too and here's why:
“Obama, on his Web site, has listed every earmark he's requested – but not necessarily received – since he came to the Senate in January 2005. The total, including earmarks in which he joined with other senators in making the request, is $931.3-million. Since he took office in January 2005, Obama has been a senator for about 930 working days, defined as Monday through Friday. That's right about $1-million per working day, though we do realize McCain didn't say 'working day' in his speech the way he did in the mailer” - Source
That’s about $ 1 million per day!!!! (Still think he is the people's candidate?– pah-leez!!!)
“They want to raise taxes on savings and investments, meaning the people with money will not save money. Our savings rate is near zero. One man’s savings is another man’s mortgage! So how will we get a decent Mortgage if people stop saving ? We can’t. This isn’t voodoo economics it is assisted suicide and they are our economic dream team – The Mouthpeace
What A Team, uh?(Makes me all goose-pippley thinking of the "Change")
Does John McCain really vote with Bush 90% of the time? Google this “McCain Bush Vote Count whole story? Or Click Here Answer: Emphatically NO. Let me reiterate:
So what about Obama? In 2006, the last year he was present for at least 95 percent of the votes on issues in which Bush took a clear position, Obama voted with the president nearly half the time. (His total Bush presidential agreement tally is 40 percent.)
Here’s another twist. According to WashingtonPost.com, since 2000, McCain has voted with a majority of his fellow Senate Republicans an average of 82 percent of the time. That’s only slightly less than the average for all Republican senators, who toed the party line almost 87 percent of the time in the same period. Meanwhile, Obama voted with a majority of Senate Democrats more than 95 percent of the time in both of his congressional sessions, while the average for Democratic senators was 87 percent. (Yeah, that’s change for ya! Barack Obama has voted 95% of the time with the most unpopular congress of all time!)
So, here are but a few facts and I have only just scratched the surface! I admonish you my friends to do some research of your own and please do share with me. Comments are not moderated -- full disclosure and transparency here folks.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Audacity of Hope-o-crisy...An Explanation of Our Economic Crisis
This video explains in detail our current economic crisis. However, for those of you who do not have 10 mins. and 51 seconds, suffer from ADD or just can't endure the accompanying music, I have summarized for you at the bottom of this post:
Here is the breakdown for you like a fraction:
1. The current economic crisis was caused by the housing bubble.
2. The housing bubble was caused by subprime mortgages to low income and bad credit borrowers.
3. Jimmy Carter and the democrats passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which gave incentives to banks to help low income borrowers get a home. (That was a good thing)
4. In 1995 the Clinton Administration added new provisions to the CRA which forced banks to offer $1 trillion (I don't even know how many zeros that is!!!) in new subprime loans and created subprime mortgage backed securities or face severe penalties thus forcing neighborhood banks into predatory lending (Why? Because they focused on low income bad credit types)
5. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprise - GSE) added fuel to the fire by guaranteeing these loans (oh, boy!) bundling and selling on Wall St. (pretty darn profitable).
6. More mortgages meant more money for Fannie & Freddie so they wanted to increase the number of mortgages (greed) but how? They lowered the bar... moved down the income scale with "affordable mortgages" in the form of Variable rate, interest only, option arm, stated income, no money down loans.
7. Bustling activity in the housing market with the influx of new buyers (who would not have normally qualified) more demand than availability forcing prices to skyrocket (remember, Econ 101 law of supply & demand)
8. Then the variable rate loans reset and interest rate increased, gas prices shot up (because America is addicted to foreign oil), paychecks are squeezed and people stop paying, banks stop lending, subprime market collapses, foreclosures pile up, no buyers (remember subprime is dead) only seller, housing prices fall, more buyers stop paying (because they realize that their loan is upside down and it's cheaper to rent).
9. Fannie's guarantee is worthless, why -- because they overstated their assets!!! (These criminals to be discussed later)
10. Banks closed due to worthless gov't backed securities, jobs are lost and here we are.
11. Why is the expansion of the CRA to blame? Because prior to CRA expansion (Clinton Admin) home prices increased with inflation afterwards home prices became unhinged from inflation (see #7) causing housing prices to rise too fast and reckless speculation. A bubble waiting to burst.....
12. This could have been avoided in fact in 2003 Pres. Bush tried to stop it and the dems blocked him and in 2005 Sen. McCain co-sponsored a bill (The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005) which would have stopped it but the dems blocked that too. Who? Barney Frank (D-MA) and Melvin Watt (D-NC) to name a few.
13. See, Fannie had friends in the Senate -- Chris Dodd (received sweet heart loan from Countrywide), and Barack Obama.
14. Jim Johnson who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie when CRA was expanded, improperly deferred $200 million in expenses and Fannie Mae under-reported his compensation originally reported at $6-7 million but was actually $21 million (avarice and corruption at it's best) oh, this is the guy that Barack Obama chose to pick his VP and he gave Obama the maximum donation of $4600. He now works for Goldman Sachs which gave Barack Obama $700,000 and raised another $500,000 through bundling (It pays to have corrupt friends doesn't it?)
15. Barack Obama has another friend Franklin Reines who he receives housing advise from who also happened to be the Vice Chairman of Fannie when CRA was expanded (Do you smell something rancid here?) Reines also received a sweet heart loan and resigned from Fannie due to accounting irregularities with a $25 million dollar golden parachute.
16. Barack Obama received more campaign money in just 3 years than John Kerry did in 20 years from Fannie & Freddie. He received 49 times more than John McCain. (Would you like to take a guess why? I guess calling for more regulation doesn't pay, huh)
17. Barack Obama also worked for Miner, Barnhill & Galland which sued banks (CitiBank being one of them) for not issuing enough subprime loans.
18.Neither poor people, the free-market, or deregulation caused this. A bad government regulation caused this, self-interested lawyers caused this, greed and stupidity on wall street caused this, and bad social engineering caused this creating an environment and the wrong incentive (CRA) which forced banks into predatory lending and set low income families up for failure. That's not hope and that's not change that's cruelty.
Barack Obama's friends caused this; the political philosophy to which he ascribes caused this. He has the audacity to lecture the country on failed economic policies! This is not change it is more of the same. It is hypocrisy -- It is hope-o-crisy!
Here is the breakdown for you like a fraction:
1. The current economic crisis was caused by the housing bubble.
2. The housing bubble was caused by subprime mortgages to low income and bad credit borrowers.
3. Jimmy Carter and the democrats passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which gave incentives to banks to help low income borrowers get a home. (That was a good thing)
4. In 1995 the Clinton Administration added new provisions to the CRA which forced banks to offer $1 trillion (I don't even know how many zeros that is!!!) in new subprime loans and created subprime mortgage backed securities or face severe penalties thus forcing neighborhood banks into predatory lending (Why? Because they focused on low income bad credit types)
5. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprise - GSE) added fuel to the fire by guaranteeing these loans (oh, boy!) bundling and selling on Wall St. (pretty darn profitable).
6. More mortgages meant more money for Fannie & Freddie so they wanted to increase the number of mortgages (greed) but how? They lowered the bar... moved down the income scale with "affordable mortgages" in the form of Variable rate, interest only, option arm, stated income, no money down loans.
7. Bustling activity in the housing market with the influx of new buyers (who would not have normally qualified) more demand than availability forcing prices to skyrocket (remember, Econ 101 law of supply & demand)
8. Then the variable rate loans reset and interest rate increased, gas prices shot up (because America is addicted to foreign oil), paychecks are squeezed and people stop paying, banks stop lending, subprime market collapses, foreclosures pile up, no buyers (remember subprime is dead) only seller, housing prices fall, more buyers stop paying (because they realize that their loan is upside down and it's cheaper to rent).
9. Fannie's guarantee is worthless, why -- because they overstated their assets!!! (These criminals to be discussed later)
10. Banks closed due to worthless gov't backed securities, jobs are lost and here we are.
11. Why is the expansion of the CRA to blame? Because prior to CRA expansion (Clinton Admin) home prices increased with inflation afterwards home prices became unhinged from inflation (see #7) causing housing prices to rise too fast and reckless speculation. A bubble waiting to burst.....
12. This could have been avoided in fact in 2003 Pres. Bush tried to stop it and the dems blocked him and in 2005 Sen. McCain co-sponsored a bill (The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005) which would have stopped it but the dems blocked that too. Who? Barney Frank (D-MA) and Melvin Watt (D-NC) to name a few.
But I know the naysayers don't believe me so I can't resist showing you the proof:
13. See, Fannie had friends in the Senate -- Chris Dodd (received sweet heart loan from Countrywide), and Barack Obama.
14. Jim Johnson who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie when CRA was expanded, improperly deferred $200 million in expenses and Fannie Mae under-reported his compensation originally reported at $6-7 million but was actually $21 million (avarice and corruption at it's best) oh, this is the guy that Barack Obama chose to pick his VP and he gave Obama the maximum donation of $4600. He now works for Goldman Sachs which gave Barack Obama $700,000 and raised another $500,000 through bundling (It pays to have corrupt friends doesn't it?)
15. Barack Obama has another friend Franklin Reines who he receives housing advise from who also happened to be the Vice Chairman of Fannie when CRA was expanded (Do you smell something rancid here?) Reines also received a sweet heart loan and resigned from Fannie due to accounting irregularities with a $25 million dollar golden parachute.
16. Barack Obama received more campaign money in just 3 years than John Kerry did in 20 years from Fannie & Freddie. He received 49 times more than John McCain. (Would you like to take a guess why? I guess calling for more regulation doesn't pay, huh)
17. Barack Obama also worked for Miner, Barnhill & Galland which sued banks (CitiBank being one of them) for not issuing enough subprime loans.
18.Neither poor people, the free-market, or deregulation caused this. A bad government regulation caused this, self-interested lawyers caused this, greed and stupidity on wall street caused this, and bad social engineering caused this creating an environment and the wrong incentive (CRA) which forced banks into predatory lending and set low income families up for failure. That's not hope and that's not change that's cruelty.
Barack Obama's friends caused this; the political philosophy to which he ascribes caused this. He has the audacity to lecture the country on failed economic policies! This is not change it is more of the same. It is hypocrisy -- It is hope-o-crisy!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Why Would Any Self-Respecting Black Person Vote for the McCain/ Palin Ticket? Here's Why...
Well, I have written about this in some form or another 20 times in this month alone, but I think my friend Zo (well, I don't know him personally but if I did he'd be my friend) articulates this masterfully so please watch. It's a bit lengthy but thoroughly entertaining and provocative(at least listen to the 1st 3 mins):
What? I told you I was his new fangirl!
What? I told you I was his new fangirl!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A look at How Closely Barack Obama is tied to the Housing Crisis...
I have tried not to participate the bashing and finger pointing that's going on between the Dems and Repubs. The Dems are screaming about Bush being in bed with Bin Ladin for oil and 911 being an inside job, last night the liberal talk show hosts were screaming that the repubs are intending to "steal the election" again. I don't believe that 911 was an inside job nor do I believe that the election was stolen in 2000. What the Barack Obama acolytes would be shocked to know and will probably never know since he is the media darling and mainstream media rarely reports any of his dirt is that his hands are not clean where this housing crisis is concerned and John McCain predicted that this would happen during a 2006 speech on the Senate floor. Check this out:
Let me reiterate......
"Simply put Barack Obama and his party allies own the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac big government failure. McCain and the republicans tried to stop this from happening. This is just another example of what big government and the democrats will give you and the accountability that the republicans demand. Failing to see the difference will cost YOU" -- Amanda Carpenter
Let me reiterate......
"Simply put Barack Obama and his party allies own the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac big government failure. McCain and the republicans tried to stop this from happening. This is just another example of what big government and the democrats will give you and the accountability that the republicans demand. Failing to see the difference will cost YOU" -- Amanda Carpenter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)